DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the amendments clarify the transitioning to the secondary user mode to include the secondary user has a corresponding secondary user profile associated with a QoS parameter reduction which is not included in the normal mode of operation for a primary user, these features not taught in the cited portions of the prior art.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and a new ground s of rejection is presented following an updated search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11, 13, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pope teaches:
An electronic device comprising: a display; a memory having stored thereon at least one application and a secondary user mode control module for controlling the electronic device; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display and to the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the control module, which enables the electronic device [Figure 2 shows device, ¶0143-0155 known to include the components, also ¶0213] to:
transition the electronic device to operate in a secondary user mode of operation [¶0442, profile may switch between adult and child profiles based on fingerprint scan], wherein the electronic device is configured to be used by a secondary user who is not a primary user [¶0442 configured to be used by child, primary user, and an adult, considered secondary user], the secondary user having a corresponding secondary user profile with an associated QoS parameter reduction on the electronic device, the secondary user mode of operation being different from a normal mode of operation, which is provided for the primary user and which does not include the QoS parameter reduction [¶0451, wherein QoS reduction included for adult profile, resulting in smaller screen (QoS reduction), and not included for child profile in which size of display is greater, see also ¶0469 where brightness level higher for child profile compared to adult profile]; and generate a quality-of-service parameter reduction from the normal mode of operation for at least one quality-of-service (QoS) parameter in response to the electronic device being in the secondary user mode of operation for a predetermined duration [¶0451, once switched to adult profile, thus for predetermined duration as this duration is not defined, display zoom level set at default level 100% less than size for children profile at 200%].
Regarding claim 3, Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor reduces a QoS parameter selected from a group that comprises: a resolution of the display, a brightness of the display, and a size of a video window that is rendered on the display [¶0451, reduce size of a video from 200% to 100%, ¶0469 brightness also a QoS parameter].
Regarding claim 8, Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising at least one biometric input mechanism, wherein the at least one processor: monitors for entry of a biometric authentication input of a primary user [¶0442 fingerprint scan determines child or adult user]; and reactivates the display and returns the electronic device to a primary user mode of operation in response to a biometric authentication of the primary user while the electronic device is in one of a secondary user mode of operation or a false shutdown mode [¶0442, ¶0451 set to default when adult profile determined based on fingerprint scan reactivating the display, which may occur after false shutdown see ¶0719].
Regarding claim 11, see similar rejection for claim 1 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 13, see similar rejection for claim 3 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 16, see similar rejection for claim 8 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Regarding claim 20, see similar rejection for claim 8 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) in view of Li et al. (“Li”) (WO 2016095353 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor reduces the at least one QoS parameter [¶0451 reduce zoom for adult profile compared to child, ¶0469 may also reduce brightness].
Pope teaches reducing QoS parameter but no in increments.
Li teaches reducing in increments [Li ¶0050 and ¶0057, wherein a first increment reduces brightness by a predetermined value, a second changed increment reduces to zero i.e. turns off the screen].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify reducing in increments. Pope teaches reducing a parameter and it would have been obvious to specify reducing in increments as in Li who teaches this allows for preventing too much power consumption ¶0005.
Regarding claim 12, see similar rejection for claim 2 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) and Lee et al. (“Lee”)(US 20080016544 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1.
Pope teaches controlling a screen for QoS reduction but does not teach random pauses of playback.
Lee teaches wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor causes random pauses in playback of a video that is rendered on the display [Figure 1 shows display, ¶0034-36 teaches pauses in the playback of video, “when the attention of the user is distracted to other places, the display system of the present embodiment automatically pauses displaying the video” corresponding to random pauses in playback].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of pauses in the reduction of QoS. Pope teaches altering the screen parameters and it would have been obvious to specify pausing playback as in Lee ¶0036 so as to achieve the purpose of saving electric power and preventing the user from missing the video content.
Regarding claim 14, see similar rejection for claim 4 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. (“Pope”) (US 20220066604 A1) and Devara et al (“Devara”) (US 20130143504 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pope teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: a network interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and which enables the electronic device to connect to a network and download content being consumed at the electronic device [¶0213 teaches downloading content, ¶0172 RF circuitry].
Pope teaches closing a data connection but not causing latency.
Devara teaches and wherein to generate the QoS parameter reduction, the at least one processor induces an artificial network latency in the electronic device that negatively affects a consumption of the content [¶0057, device enters low power mode corresponding to QoS parameter reduction, “Quality of service (QoS) or the speed of wireless activities of the UE can be tailored by a user. For instance, while putting the modem in idle may save power, in some cases it can decrease QoS by adding latency to content downloads” thus latency created negatively affecting consumption].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the use of QoS reduction results in latency as in Devara. Pope teaches changing network connection and it would have been obvious to specify this would create latency as in Devara in order to save power ¶0057.
Regarding claim 15, see similar rejection for claim 5 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-7, 9-10, 17-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478